By Plenary Sessions: Valdo Randpere
Total Sessions: 30
Fully Profiled: 30
2025-10-09
15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
The speaker avoids directly criticizing political opponents or specific policies, instead posing a structural question regarding the concentration of the economy. There are no direct opponents mentioned or criticism aimed at specific policies.
2025-09-18
15th Estonian Parliament, 6th sitting, plenary session.
Direct confrontation is not expressed, but there is a palpable sense of mild criticism regarding the Bank of Estonia's previous approach to contributing to the state budget, which is characterized as a "stingy" attitude. The focus is on institutional pressure to shift financial policy in line with the state's needs.
2025-09-04
15th Riigikogu, extraordinary session of the Riigikogu
The opposition is directed against the Riigikogu bodies (the session department or the board) that made procedural decisions and which, in the speaker's estimation, made an incorrect decision when interpreting the law. The criticism is intense and focuses on procedural irregularity, rather than substantive policy, and is also aimed at Toomas, who defended the mistake.
2025-06-18
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The main opposition is directed at the initiators of the national action plan, who are criticized for increasing bureaucracy and engaging in unnecessary "ideological grandstanding." The criticism is policy- and procedure-based, arguing that the action plan adds nothing to the work already underway. The speaker rejects the opponents' enthusiasm regarding the necessity of the new action plan, pointing out that the state cannot solve every problem.
2025-06-11
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
There is a complete absence of opposition, as the speaker emphasized that not a single amendment was submitted regarding the bill, nor were any questions raised in the committee. This points to the bill's widespread acceptance within Parliament.
2025-05-14
15th Riigikogu, 5th sitting, plenary session
The opposition is aimed at colleagues (e.g., Rain Epler, Evelin, Helle-Moonika), who are criticized for misunderstanding the purpose of legislation or for framing issues in an overly ideological manner. He rejects the claim that the legal amendments are based on isolated incidents (such as the Taavi Rõivas case), and criticizes Helle-Moonika for viewing everything through the prism of her worldview.
2025-04-17
15th Estonian Parliament, 5th session, plenary session
The confrontation is directed against both the previous speaker and the presiding officer, the latter of whom is publicly corrected for factual errors. The speaker is criticized for the inaccuracy of the political narrative regarding the positive effects of the VAT reduction, and the critique is grounded in both policy and fact.
2025-04-15
Fifteenth Riigikogu, Fifth Session, Plenary Session.
The most severe criticism is aimed at the Social Democrats ("Sotsid"), who stand accused of fearmongering and spreading false predictions concerning the labor law amendments. The broader opposition is criticized for arriving at negotiations unprepared and discussing irrelevant matters (such as VAT). The criticism is both substantive (policy-based) and procedural.
2025-03-12
15th Riigikogu, Fifth Session, Plenary Session
Strong opposition is directed at the Helme family (Martin, Mart, Helle-Moonika Helme), who are being criticized both for political hypocrisy and for distorting historical facts. In Martin Helme's case, the emphasis is on procedural violations (failure to appear before commissions), while Mart Helme is criticized for factual errors concerning Kaja Kallas's resignation. The criticism is intense and includes personal remarks directed at their opponents.
2025-02-19
15th Estonian Parliament, 5th session, plenary sitting
No direct opposition is voiced, but the speaker indirectly criticizes the government or the proponents of the draft legislation for failing to use the existing precedent following the Baltic Sea events to initiate an international treaty. The criticism is aimed at the lack of political vision.
2025-02-12
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The speaker criticizes the opposition's actions, calling the no-confidence motion against the Prime Minister a failure and a waste of the day that obstructed meaningful legislation. The opposition's political position on the specific legal reform bill is not criticized; instead, the focus is placed on emphasizing cross-party consensus.
2025-01-15
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The main opponent is the Centre Party, which is being criticized for constantly complaining and playing the victim role over the last two to three years. The criticism targets both their political narrative and the Centre Party's failure to meet the deadlines for the hospital project. The attacks are intense and direct, effectively questioning the opponent's judgment.
2024-11-07
15th Parliament, 4th sitting, plenary session
The main opponents are the Centre Party (Keskerakond) and EKRE, who are criticized for ignoring the strategic importance of Rail Baltic. Criticism is also aimed at the opponents’ honesty and factual accuracy, accusing the Centre Party of a lack of candor regarding corruption and security issues, and EKRE of spreading false claims about conscription.
2024-10-08
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
The main opposition is aimed at Kalle, the proponent of the bill, whose proposal is sharply criticized as legally incorrect and absurd. Criticism is also leveled at the contradiction between Kalle's fight against the hate speech law and the criminalizing nature of his own bill. Furthermore, Lauri Laats is personally criticized for hypocrisy regarding the requirements for attendance in the chamber.
2024-06-04
15th Riigikogu, third session, plenary sitting
The main criticism is aimed at Andrei Korobeinik, who is being attacked on a personal level. The criticism is intense, expressing deep regret over having invited Korobeinik into politics, which suggests a profound condemnation of his political activities.
2024-05-29
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The opposition targets specific provisions of Kalle Grünthal's draft bill, particularly the requirement to impose "enormous penalties" for speech. It also criticizes earlier Estonian media practices that violated the presumption of innocence, but notes that progress has been made in that area.
2024-05-08
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, information briefing
The primary targets of criticism are the chairs and members of the Riigikogu committees, particularly the Select Committee on State Budget Control. The criticism is aimed at the incompetence of their activities and their deviation from legal norms, focusing less on the political substance and more on the violation of work procedures.
2024-05-07
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The primary criticism is aimed at the National Heritage Board, which is accused of excessive rigidity and actions that impede development, while simultaneously protecting a dilapidated building "to the last drop of blood." The criticism is focused on policy and procedure, calling into question the agency's authority and reasonableness. The opposition is intense and uncompromising.
2024-04-03
15th Estonian Parliament, 3rd sitting, plenary session
Sharply opposes EKRE, accusing them of smearing the prosecutor's office and favoring political interference. Criticizes the opposition's procedural irregularities, citing the example of submitting 50 amendments only to withdraw them later, which wasted the committee's time. The personal attacks concern Kert Kingo's alleged incompetence and contradictory claims regarding the legal systems of other countries.
2024-03-20
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
The primary objection is aimed at the Russian Federation, which is described as a state that provides legal assistance only on terms suitable for itself (e.g., sharing compromising material/dirt on opposition figures). Domestically, Mart Maastik's amendment proposal is criticized due to its poor wording and subsequent withdrawal.
2024-03-13
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting.
The main opponent is the bill's presenter, whose view characterizing the abolition of the tax hump as class struggle is strongly criticized. The criticism targets both the opponent's political framework and the disproportionate impact of the opponent's bill (the reduction of VAT on foodstuffs), which also benefits consumers of luxury goods.
2024-02-21
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The criticism is aimed at Riigikogu members (e.g., Varro Vooglaid and Eduard Odinets) who raised questions regarding the consequences of the agreement or potential alternatives (such as freezing it). Russia is heavily criticized as an unreliable contracting partner whose legal system is politically motivated and cannot be trusted. Furthermore, the Centre Party is being reproached for its previous unsuccessful attempt to "freeze" the agreement with United Russia.
2024-02-14
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The main opponents are Isamaa politicians Urmas Reinsalu and Jaanus Karilaid, who are sharply criticized for political hypocrisy regarding tax issues. The criticism is aimed at their past mistakes (the loss of 235 million euros to Latvia) and their untrustworthiness, rather than focusing on substantive opposition to the car tax itself. Martin Helme is also criticized for "whistleblowing."
2024-02-08
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session.
The main opponent is Henn and the EKRE faction. The criticism is intense and focuses on the opponents' political hypocrisy (condemning forces that want to ban articles of clothing, while having done so themselves) and cowardice (fleeing the presentation of the draft bill). The opponent is also criticized for their tendency to spread conspiracy theories (the liberal global movement).
2024-02-07
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary sitting.
The speaker takes a strong stance against EKRE, accusing them of obstruction and introducing politically motivated bills that threaten the balance of the judicial system. He personally criticizes Martin Helme for a miscalculation made while serving as the former finance minister during the pension reform, which cost the state 22 million euros.
2024-01-24
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, information briefing
Direct criticism is aimed at the premise of Varro Vooglaid's question, implying that Vooglaid should be aware of the principles of state sovereignty. Furthermore, he calls into question the actions of the City of Tallinn (specifically, the right of superficies and the lease agreement) concerning the Russian Orthodox Church, demanding government intervention.
2024-01-23
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session
The main criticism is aimed at the free higher education reform that the Isamaa party aggressively pushed through in 2011. The criticism is policy-based and historical, linking that decision to the current funding woes facing the education system. The intensity of the criticism is moderate, and it is presented in the form of questions.
2024-01-17
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, information briefing
The main criticism is directed at the coalition partner (Eesti 200) and the Minister of Education, who are accused of breaking pre-election promises and demonstrating insufficient leadership capacity. The criticism is intense and focuses on political discord and the shifting of responsibility toward the Prime Minister. The timing and objective of the teachers' strike are also being criticized.
2024-01-16
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
The main opponents are the bill’s presenters (Kert Kingo, Varro Vooglaid) and the broader opposition, who are primarily criticized for their rhetoric and lack of procedural quality. He challenges the opponents' claims that an "oriental dictatorship" prevails in Estonia and that "no one is responsible for anything," dismissing this as inappropriate and overly exaggerated sloganizing.
2024-01-11
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
The main target is EKRE, which is being criticized both for its value-based positions (opposition to surrogacy) and its procedural conduct (submitting thousands of amendments). The criticism is intense, and the objective is to force the opposition to publicly declare its future actions regarding the bill, citing their previous behavior.